 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You haven't the first clue what anyone believes beyond yourself,
But that's OK, because they're all WRONG!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?
Sure thing. But Satan traditionally is an opposing force to 'God', so
at the very least you've implicitly acknowledged *existence*. XD
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Joel Yliluoma wrote:
> and this makes me believe that God's
> reasoning abilities are significantly higher than that of any of us.
I'm curious what part of the bible makes you think that.
>> How come when Joel tells me that I don't understand, I don't get to
>> point out the parts of the Bible where God says yes, I *do* understand.
>> Isn't that logical?
>
> If I understand correctly, you are referring to the "tree of good and evil"
> and interpreting that the tree gave the human powers of understanding good
> and evil equalling that of God.
Yes. Or, at least, that I have knowledge of the difference between good
and evil, so when I see evil, I am not particularly wrong about whether
it's really good.
> Genesis 3:22 (KJV) says:
> "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
> and evil
> This does not unambiguously imply that we now understand everything
> (or even good and evil) as God does. It only says that we've got some
> understanding.
It says "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". I don't
know how less ambiguous it could be. It's a heck of a lot less ambiguous
than lots of the other stuff in the bible.
Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
them? This is "the best of all possible worlds" argument - since evil
exists, and God isn't evil, then it must be the case that the amount of
evil in the world is the minimum amount it's possible to have.
The only problem with *this* argument is that it implies that being good
won't help - the amount of evil in the world is already at a minimum, so
nothing you can do can improve the world.
So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
he *decides* not to stop the evil. There really isn't a third choice
there, even if you say "God is really smart", it just means he's
deciding not to stop the evil for reasons we can't understand.
And if unbelievers *are* dragged off to the pits of hell at the end of
the world, it sounds like he's not planning stopping the evil any time
soon, either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?
>
> Sure thing. But Satan traditionally is an opposing force to 'God',
Only in *your* tradition. Loki, Bacchus, and Pan aren't opposing forces
to God. Well, maybe *your* God doesn't like them, but they aren't
opposing (as you mean it) to the other gods in their pantheon.
> at the very least you've implicitly acknowledged *existence*. XD
Nope. Only if the "God" you speak of is the God of the bible, at which
point you're not calling "what did what I don't understand" God. You're
afirmatively saying "because I don't understand something, the God of
the Bible exists and behaves the way described therein", which is
nonsensical.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> When you propose a theory, you tell peoples:
> I've made some observations, or conducted some experiments, or performed some
> studies. Here are my results, and how I got them. Now, here is my attempt at
> explaning my results. I invite you to evaluate my results and explanation. I
> invite you to remake my work and see if I made any mistake. Try to prove or
> disprove it with every tools at your disposal. If you disprove it, to bad, but
> please show me, and everybody, where I erred. If you prove it, tell that you
> did, and how you did it.
>
> When you proclaim a dogma, you tell peoples:
> This IS The TRUTH! That Truth is absolute and immuable. Nobody can question The
> Truth. If you don't agree with The Truth, you are an heretic, or just plain
> wrong in the best of cases.
indeed. You just provided a clear case of the differences between religion and
science. Your point is?... Religion is not science? is anyone claiming
otherwise? Religion is bad because you are required to believe in invisible
beings dictating actions to "inspired" people who may just be schizoids
wreaking havoc? perhaps, specially when taken out of context...
Science does not replace God, it only shows His creation all the more
interesting: thunder is not some god hammering the clouds, just the result of
God's laws governing the physical world.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You haven't the first clue what anyone believes beyond yourself,
>
> But that's OK, because they're all WRONG!
>
If we're all wrong, I don't want to be right!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> I have seen how people who see the world in clear black and white act.
> They are called sociopaths. And just to be clear. I have never, nor has
> anyone I know that ranges from mildly religious to atheist, *ever* raped
> anyone, killed anyone, lied on the scale that self claimed believers do,
> or committed any of the other large scale sins that *you* are likely
> talking about when saying that we live in an immoral world. However,
> ***every*** person I have ever met that thinks the Bible is literal
> truth, believes they are saved, or otherwise thinks I am the one going
> to hell is invariably a hypocrite, lies constantly, would steal formula
> from a starving baby if they thought God wanted them to, threatens to
> kill people, has committed either rape, adultery, pedophilia, or all of
> those together, and more than a few, attach themselves to other
> *believers* like leeches, to suck money, time, and anything else they
> can get their hands on, from the fools that stand there and defend them
> for doing it.
man, cool down! Not all believers are rapist, violent sociopaths, I certainly
am not. Perhaps these cases search salvation exactly because of their
behaviour? OTOH, how many sociopaths are satanists or atheists? How many
sociopaths are in the army, supposedly defending their people?
BTW, you're just plain exagerating matters. You say "I have never, nor has
anyone I know that ranges from mildly religious to atheist, *ever* raped
anyone, killed anyone, lied on the scale that self claimed believers do" and I
can say the same. I haven't, nor anyone I know, even severely blind devotees
who really believe the Universe was created in 6 days and evolution is a thing
of the devil...
Atheists kill about as much as religious people: see the comunist governments,
nazi-facists or imperialist potencies. My take: religous or not, we are just
sinful men.
> And, the odd thing is, these people do this crap on national TV 24/7 on
> some stations their scamming for the masses pay for, and no one blinks
> and eye.
The catholic church and many modern evangelicals wearing suits have a long
tradition of usurping from their devottees until the last penny. But salvation
doesn't come from other men, just through the Word.
> We don't have
> saints, authority figures, kings, or people raised to some high,
> unassailable position, from which they may not be challenged.
> ... The only thing most of you are
> likely to do is send letters of praise to the people that act like fools
> in your system of beliefs, or ignore it, as inconsequential.
Rave supporting or ignoring someone is always to be expected in men's social
behaviours.
> Such people are *obviously*
> adding to the evil committed in the world, misleading people into
> believing its acceptable to commit such acts,
it's not acceptable to commit sins, but we're all bound to commit it one way or
the other and should seek forgiveness for it. True religious people try their
best to avoid repeating their mistakes. but you know it's hard...
> I am willing to fight against
> that, by exposing such acts. You... ignore them?
why don't you also expose sins by non-believers? How many scientists have been
living in a fraud in their quest for fortune, fame and glory? Yes, it's easier
to hide them when you can simply say it's the way science works: criticise
their work and try to bring them down, if it stands, it's a good, solid theory.
If not, let's forget.
> And somehow, the entire
> problem is not too much religion in the hands of lunatics, madmen,
> bigots and the immoral, its a lack of religion among those that don't
> fall for their lies in the first place...
Lunatics, madmen and bigots are everywhere in positions of power. At least,
religion welcomes them and offer them a path to salvation. If they follow it
or not is their problem and relates to their free will.
> Such people imply a state of
> blindness that only *starts* at blind faith, and merely progresses down
> hill from there.
funny thing is that I used to be a skeptic. and my faith isn't blind at all,
it's just faith...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?
>>
>> Sure thing. But Satan traditionally is an opposing force to 'God',
>
> Only in *your* tradition. Loki, Bacchus, and Pan aren't opposing forces
> to God. Well, maybe *your* God doesn't like them, but they aren't
> opposing (as you mean it) to the other gods in their pantheon.
But Loki, Bacchus, and Pan aren't 'Satan'. "Satan" is traditionally an
opposing force to "God", though not all things referred to as "God" have
an entity to oppose them which is called "Satan", and there are also
entities known as gods which are assigned slightly less power than "God".
>> at the very least you've implicitly acknowledged *existence*. XD
>
> Nope. Only if the "God" you speak of is the God of the bible, at which
> point you're not calling "what did what I don't understand" God. You're
> afirmatively saying "because I don't understand something, the God of
> the Bible exists and behaves the way described therein", which is
> nonsensical.
Hrm...I dunno. See previous paragraph by me. I personally don't
believe in the existence of a specific opposing entity known as Satan,
merely that Satan is a metaphor/scapegoat to excuse the evil actions for
which humans are individually and personally responsible. To me, "God"
is the sum total of reality which, when considered as a single thing,
encompasses all consciousness and could embody more than what we
currently think of as existing. Basically, in containing all
consciousness, the universe is itself conscious, though not necessarily
in a way analogous to what we think of as conscious, and in some way
that consciousness set up the laws of nature as they exist to allow for
reality as we know it to occur. I call that "God". Does it have an
active interest in human lives? I have no way of knowing, but it is at
least unnecessary whether or not does or not.
Is something that *does* have an active interest in human lives and
can/does interact with them in any manner intentionally malevolent in
the sense that we understand? I think so, based on my personal
experience. Anything bad that happens is God's fault, as is anything
good that might (theoretically) happen, since God *is* everything, and
all activity is an integral part of God.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
> them?
These are human tragedies. Shit happens.
It's not good for the people involved, but to what extent? To die as a baby or
to survive only to be enslaved, or abused, and to die of hunger or AIDS
eventually? How can you say to live is better than to die? Maybe God has
other plans for these people. And regardless if you have any faith or not,
these tragedies always end up resulting in something positive in the end,
either making us rethink our way of life or being less egoistical. It's
actually in such times that we see the best of people coming out and letting be
known.
> So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
> he *decides* not to stop the evil.
yin-yang. One cannot exist without the other. Evil serves the purpose of
showing the nature of Good by contrast. Is Evil outside God's control? Was
Evil created by God as everything else? Or is Evil just a different God?
these questions are outside my reach. It doesn't matter, because I chose the
side I'm comfortable the most.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475ecd91922777eb773c9a3e0@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> > When you proclaim a dogma, you tell peoples:
> > This IS The TRUTH! That Truth is absolute and immuable. Nobody can ques
tion The
> > Truth. If you don't agree with The Truth, you are an heretic, or just p
lain
> > wrong in the best of cases.
>
>
> indeed. You just provided a clear case of the differences between religi
on and
> science. Your point is?... Religion is not science? is anyone claiming
> otherwise? Religion is bad because you are required to believe in invisi
ble
> beings dictating actions to "inspired" people who may just be schizoids
> wreaking havoc? perhaps, specially when taken out of context...
>
> Science does not replace God, it only shows His creation all the more
> interesting: thunder is not some god hammering the clouds, just the resu
lt of
> God's laws governing the physical world.
>
Science replaced religion all the time, you people just keep moving the
goal posts and insisting that, "Well, even if we now know X, we don't
know Y and God is hiding under Y."
And, just to be clear religion is bad because it derails discovery and
promotes dogma, which, as has already been mentioned, **is not allowed**
to be questioned. When the first versions of the Bible where published
in English, it caused paranoia, fear and fundamentalism, since it
demanded that everyone accept *all* of its contents as literally true,
by its own definitions, and people where so scared of getting it wrong
that they where willing to kill people to force them to follow it.
Rather than providing greater understanding and freedom, never mind free
will, it generated groups of lunatics, whose sole purpose was to deny
understandings that didn't fit the Bible, wipe out people that refused
to bow to the new order, and force people to become puppets to the
religious dogma, rather than choosing their own path in life. We still
get the same insane arguments from the fundies today. Now, with Islam we
are seeing the same thing. Most of the Middle East was fairly
illiterate. We, from the west, argued that greater freedom would come to
them if they had real schools, better literacy, etc., but when they got
that, some of them opted to read *their* holy book, and the result was
the rise of the same fundamentalism, paranoia and mass murder that
Christians committed in the early days of wide spread literacy and easy
access to the Bible.
So, how again is religion, or more specifically those religions that
deny exploration and understanding, in favor of absolute truths and
dogma, *good*? Because, after thousands of people die for nothing,
reformists come along and mostly defang the belief system?
BTW, good read on the subject:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SIMBUR.html
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
